tjstoneman wrote:
"Caveat Emptor" - buyer beware. Whilst nicely presented, there seem to be some flaws in this work,
I have explained in the opening of the book that the research is mine, the conclusions are mine and any mistakes are mine. Across the 740 illustrations it was inevitable that a pennant number or date here and there might be wrong because it was so hard to find anyone able to edit it, with the expert naval knowledge to pick up every such error. I have found such a person for book 2, indeed a team of people. The pennant number errors you picked up were also picked up in the last editing, but somehow seem to have not found their way into the final print.
You are no doubt right about there being a few mistakes, but it does sort of depress me that with 740 illustrations you have been only able to comment on those few errors! Was there nothing positive to say about so many years of research and work assembling all of that mass of work????
I do have paint chips used by the RN, however as I point out at some length, we are dealing with real people fighting a real war. We not only have the frailty of human errors, but the pressure of war and fatigue on crews. Hence the general TLAR (That looks about right) attitude of many. I've had letters since the publication in which some who served in the RN post war have said that TLAR was common right up to this day, and that was not under the pressure the sailors of WW2 were under.
Not only were the men under pressure, so were the dockyards. One illustration shows a hilariously incorrect pennant number applied in a dockyard, and since drawing that one, I've found another similar error in photographs. Many of those working as dock yard matey's (As they were known) had not been involved pre war. The skill level therefore fell. But also the pressure of war meant that many non Royal dockyards had to be used and the had limited experience with naval requirements. Local procurement paints meant purchasing what was available locally, and where possible to something as near as possible to what was supposed to be the right hue. Or alternatively mixing locally available paints to something near the right shades. For this I used anecdotes of veterans from time to time. But it is possible to occasionally come across the odd mention in sources that are not actually about camouflage or painting, but it gets mentioned. The stories included sitting with some retired dockyard matey's over a few beers in Sydney, who related many unofficial things done. Sometimes to avoid work, cut corners and even to steal hard to get paint or materials later sold on the black market.
As for differing armaments. The War Emergency Destroyers had a designated armament and then there was the 'actually fitted' armament. I carried out extensive research so that when showing individual ships I showed what they actually carried, rather than the intended armament. Not all sister ships were the same! With so many ships under construction in the last half of the war it was inevitable that shipyards were faced with the choice of holding ships up until a designated armament was available, or fitting what was actually available. In some case ships 'won' by getting more or better than intended. (Twin 40 mm and even single 40 mm were a win) In some cases they 'lost' by getting less or older weapons than intended (2pdrs). Therefore I made a great effort to show what was actually fitted to each individual ship rather than use a standard drawing for them all. (It was a lot of work to do that!!!!)
As well as the War Emergency classes, there were sometimes quite big differences in the 'actual' armament of other ships too. My Uncle served on HMAS Waterhen in the Med and later on HMAS Nestor and others. He told me how the number of light AA guns could vary on his ships according to how many Bren Guns (Even a Vickers) the army carelessly left laying around unguarded! How they unbolted Italian 20 mm Breda guns from ships that had been 'bottomed' in various ports. Other veterans were full of stories of 'The accidental finding' of "useful stuff". One one occasion some Army gunners were away playing cricket and only the alertness of one of them who had remained behind, prevented their 40 mm Bofors being 'found' by a naval scavenger group. (Who had commenced dismantling it!!) On entering one of the front line places it was a regular thing for a 'search party' to go ashore looking for spare ammunition for these unofficial weapons. One of the Mediterranean Admirals stated that the actual armament of a ship often depended on how many skilled kleptomaniacs a Bosun could find among the crew.
Some however, were semi-official. Taken from a sinking ship, or one damaged beyond repair. This level of semi organised theft of what they could not otherwise get in their stores and equipment list, also extended to paint. HMS Terror for example used British Army stone as part of an unofficial camouflage. (See book 2) This sort of thing was of course not exclusive to the British and Commonwealth navies. All navies seem to have people with the right Piratical thieving skill to ensure that one way or another, they got what was needed.
I listed a 'select' list of sources because to have listed them all would have meant exceeding the number of allocated pages, or leaving some drawings out to accommodate that. In other instances the 'source' is my own research, which again, I made clear in the opening of the book. The source is therefore sometimes 'me'.
If one wants to know what really went on, it is necessary to not only do the research, but also place oneself in the same situation. MY background is Police. I went about much of it like an investigation and in an investigation one always finds that the witnesses disagree and what was meant to be is not necessarily always so. Official records can be wrong. Therefore I put this series of books together keeping in mind that over the years I have read many, many, sources in which the authors seemed completely stuck on the 'official' versions and what was supposed to be. My research told me that it was simply not always the case and not always possible to follow the official version. Over the years I have seen far too many 'official records' that were quite wrong.
The research was also carried out over my lifetime (I am now almost 71) and yes, I did lose notes and could no longer remember some names and sources across the fifty years or so I took a particular interest. (My actual interest started as a small child) But I think the opening adequately explains that.
Therefore I present the series of books as they are, with mention of TLAR etc. As a result I offer no apologies, only the assurance that I did everything I could to get it right.
Login
Register
FAQ
